davea0511
- 2
- 0
What happens to the particulate nature of light as a light expands outward infinitely from a single point light source. Pretty much all light in the universe does that, except only where lensing takes place to create a non-divergent beam of light ... although I think such a thing is a near impossibility (low-divergence happens though - the result of lensing).
Consider one photon expanding radially from a single point light source. It only exhibits particulate nature when it is absorbed, yes? And there is a specific location where this absorption takes place, yes?
In otherwords, consider the following scenario:
Say you have an array of digital telescopes side by side focused on a low light source like from a extra-solar planet. That planet will reflect light as a wave as it moves through space, expanding radially as it goes so that only one photon/second should reach the telescope array, but since light is particulate in nature upon absorption only one telescope out of the entire array will see the photon.
We know that because upon absorption it has both a finite location and fixed energy.
Which brings me back to my questions ... all light waves in the universe gets infinitely thin over time as they radiate radially from a point source ... so when absorbed as a photon:
1) Is it focused at the average center of the wave, regardless the size of the wave? Or is it a random location of the photon within the wave envelope - if so what would determine that location?
2) If a digital telescope array is too small to absorb the photon's entire wave diameter, will the wave bend around the array and then continue it's path, even if the array is centered on the middle of the photon's wave? It seems this must happen because the array has to be large enough to intercept the entire wave, because as light moves it's not particulate in nature unless an entire photon's worth of energy is absorbed and a partial wave can NOT be converted to a low energy photon (ie. a single photon energy is fixed and constant for a given frequency).
I assume the answer to the first is that the location of the photon upon absorption would be centered. The second question is I think the more difficult one ... and the more interesting.
-Dave
Consider one photon expanding radially from a single point light source. It only exhibits particulate nature when it is absorbed, yes? And there is a specific location where this absorption takes place, yes?
In otherwords, consider the following scenario:
Say you have an array of digital telescopes side by side focused on a low light source like from a extra-solar planet. That planet will reflect light as a wave as it moves through space, expanding radially as it goes so that only one photon/second should reach the telescope array, but since light is particulate in nature upon absorption only one telescope out of the entire array will see the photon.
We know that because upon absorption it has both a finite location and fixed energy.
Which brings me back to my questions ... all light waves in the universe gets infinitely thin over time as they radiate radially from a point source ... so when absorbed as a photon:
1) Is it focused at the average center of the wave, regardless the size of the wave? Or is it a random location of the photon within the wave envelope - if so what would determine that location?
2) If a digital telescope array is too small to absorb the photon's entire wave diameter, will the wave bend around the array and then continue it's path, even if the array is centered on the middle of the photon's wave? It seems this must happen because the array has to be large enough to intercept the entire wave, because as light moves it's not particulate in nature unless an entire photon's worth of energy is absorbed and a partial wave can NOT be converted to a low energy photon (ie. a single photon energy is fixed and constant for a given frequency).
I assume the answer to the first is that the location of the photon upon absorption would be centered. The second question is I think the more difficult one ... and the more interesting.
-Dave